California Divorce Weblog

The Early Warnings of Divorce

Nearly a quarter of divorcees consider leaving their partner within the first two years of marriage, according to research commissioned by the London law firm which handled the divorce of Diana, Princess of Wales.

Despite couples' dread of partners succumbing to the "seven year itch", a third of divorcees had filed for divorce before their fifth wedding anniversary, said the study, conducted on behalf of lawyers from Mishcon de Reya. More than a quarter (27 per cent) of divorcees said that their "sexless" marriages drove them apart while one in 10 said their spouse's family had forced them to divorce.

Women say they come off worse in divorce, but more men say their divorces would have been less costly if they had a pre-nuptial agreement. Sandra Davis, head of family law at Mishcon de Reya, said: "People start to think about divorce many years before they actually get divorced." Couples should have "clearer expectations" and a "frank discussion about where they are going".

She said there was a strong case for making the "pre-nup" – the essential ingredient of any Hollywood break-up – legally binding in Britain. "Pre-nups are not just for the rich and famous. They can help people appreciate what their prospective spouse's attitude to money is."  Ms Davis said: "You would not enter into a commercial transaction without a contract. Marriage is a business contract with emotion laid on top."

A total of 546 divorcees were interviewed by YouGov, the polling organisation, for Mishcon de Reya. For women, divorce is highest among those aged 25 to 29. Divorce for men peaks among the 30-34 age group.

By Sarah Womack, Social Affairs Correspondent, News.telegraph
(Filed: 09/03/2005)

Governor of Arkansas to Enter into Covenant Marriage.

Two couples who have been together for a very long time have put marriage back in the news, and I'm not talking about the product-placement extravaganza of the Trump nuptials in Palm Beach.

I'm talking first about Little Rock, Ark., where, on Monday, Gov. Mike Huckabee, who's contemplating a run for president, and his wife of 31 years, the former Janet McCain, entered into what's known as a "covenant marriage." The Huckabees' new, improved marriage differs from their previous one in that they agreed to undergo premarital counseling and have vowed to seek divorce only on grounds of near-biblical proportions.

Second, I'm talking about London, where, in a demonstration of romantic, not moral, values, 56-year-old Charles, the Prince of Wales, announced that Mummy had given him permission to make an honest woman out of his 57-year-old paramour, Camilla Parker Bowles.

In both cases, the marriages ratify relationships that have been underway for decades, but otherwise they appear to have little in common. The Huckabees, who lived in a double-wide trailer while waiting for the governor's mansion to be renovated, held their ceremony in a local sports arena. Gospel singer CeCe Winans performed. The bridegroom wore street clothes, the bride a red dress. Private donors covered the $65,000 cost. The crowd erupted in cheers when the Pulaski County clerk stamped the license, making it all official.

By contrast, Charles, who divides his time among his many palaces, will marry Camilla, a divorcee, for the first time after more than 30 years of pining. Camilla, who lives discreetly with Charles at Clarence House, where the prince performs his official, and apparently other, duties, never stopped believing that her prince would come despite his marriage to the virgin princess Diana (apparently under orders from his family).

Although the Church of England was founded on the principle that kings shouldn't have to behead their wives to remarry, the marriage at Windsor Castle will be a civil ceremony. The archbishop of Canterbury, who supports the union, will preside over a private service of prayer and dedication that will follow. Though some conservatives are outraged, most in the British establishment are relieved that the prince, who may yet be king and, therefore, Defender of the Faith, will not be living in sin.

The Huckabees' intent is to shore up the beleaguered institution of marriage (although it seems so unfair that some people can get married twice and some not at all) as well as jump-start their own political fortunes. Their hyped public display gives covenant marriage a boost (it hasn't caught on since it was adopted into law in Arkansas in 2001) and successfully captured the attention of the Christian right as well as mainstream media hungry for a fresh angle on Valentine's Day.

Rather than just being a governor of a Bible Belt state with a divorce rate, embarrassingly, higher than Massachusetts', Huckabee is now the proud leader of one of only three states to super-size marriage. If moral values helped President Bush win the White House, why not Gov. Huckabee?

But in the end, I suspect, Charles and Camilla are likely to do a lot more than Mike and Janet for the institution of marriage, for the simple reason that their wedding is for them, not us. The Huckabee marriage is like Charles' first — pitched to a gullible public for maximum effect. The prince could have sent a cardboard cutout of himself to St. Paul's Cathedral for the fairy-tale wedding to the young, callow Diana. She wanted so much to be a princess she overlooked that the bridegroom loved another woman. He was a jerk and can't make amends to her, but he can to Camilla and to himself, by doing what he should have done to begin with.

To the generation that swooned over the mile-long train and horse-drawn carriage, this bony-kneed couple is creating a far less glamorous but far more resonant fairy tale — one that reflects just how messy and complicated life and marriage can be. In this new Cinderella story, Camilla can almost be forgiven for giggling like an adolescent as she held out her engagement diamond for the world to see.

On April 8, I will follow this wedding just as I did the first, knowing that the prospects are much higher this time that the bride and groom will live happily ever after.

-Margaret Carlson, Los Angeles Times, February 17, 2005

Spyware evidence rejected from divorce battle

A Florida appeals court has refused to allow a woman to use evidence obtained by illegally planting spyware on her husband’s computer to support her case in their bitter divorce proceedings.

Beverley Ann O’Brian installed a surveillance program called Spector on the computer used by her husband James. She obtained transcripts of private on-line chats between James and another woman with whom he was playing Yahoo Dominoes, according to court papers.

The Circuit Court for Orange County, Florida, found that evidence obtained in this way could not be used in court because it had been intercepted – an offence under federal wiretapping regulations and the Florida Security of Communications Act 2003. It banned Mrs O’Brian from using spyware in the future and from disclosing any information obtained from the surveillance.

Mrs O’Brian appealed, arguing that the evidence should have been admissible, as it had been obtained by copying information stored on the computer, and not through the interception of electronic communications.

Spyware comes in various guises. It can be a program downloaded to a computer, or a hardware device plugged into the back of the keyboard; but in general terms it is a device that can record e-mail messages, chat room conversations, passwords and any other computer activity.

In this case the software took snapshots of the computer screen. The question for the appeals court was whether the surveillance amounted to an interception or, as Mrs O’Brian argued, was merely the retrieval of information stored on the computer.

Giving the ruling on behalf of the three-panel court, Chief Judge Thomas D Sawaya said that there had been an interception.

“The federal courts have consistently held that electronic communications, in order to be intercepted, must be acquired contemporaneously with transmission and that electronic communications are not intercepted within the meaning of the Federal Wiretap Act if they are retrieved from storage,” wrote the Judge.

In this case, he said, the software intercepted the communications as they were transmitted. The fact that the data sent was of a screen snapshot did not mean that it had been stored by the computer.

“We do not believe that this evanescent time period is sufficient to transform acquisition of the communications from a contemporaneous interception to retrieval from electronic storage,” he explained.

As it is illegal to intercept electronic communications, the lower court was therefore entirely within its rights to refuse to accept the evidence, said the court.